IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ST. NO.922252 OF 2020
Mr.Nilesh Navlakha & Anr. ...Petitioners
vs. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
The Secretary/Joint Secretary (P & A)/Joint
Secretary (Broadcasting) & Anr. ...Respondents
Mr.Devdutt Kamat, Senior Advocate Rajesh Inamdar, Sushant Anand, Pankaj Kandhari, Smita Pandey, Aditya Bhat, Amit Pai, R. Shaikh, Saif
Alam and Ankur Azad i/b Mr.Pankaj Kandhari for the petitioners Mr.P.P.Kakade, GP with Ms R.A.Salunkhe, AGP for State Mr.Anil Singh, ASG for Union of India Mr.Devdhar Kamat for Respondent No.1.
WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (ST) NO.1774 OF 2020
…
Mahesh Narayan Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
v/s. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
…
Mr.Milind Sathe, Sr.Counsel for the Petitioners.
Mr.Anil C.Singh, ASG for UoI.
...
CORAM : A. A. SAYED AND
SURENDRA P.TAVADE, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 3, 2020.
(Through Video Conferencing)
PIL ST No.1774 of 2020, which is filed by former IPS Officers, was mentioned and taken on Board, as we are told that the issues raised therein are more or less identical to the issues raised in PIL (St)
No.922252 of 2020.
2 PIL (St) No.922252 of 2020 has been filed raising concerns about the media coverage pertaining to the unnatural death of actor Sushat Singh Rajput, which according to the Petitioners may tantamount to media trial.
3 Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that all the Respondents have been served. None, however, appears for Respondents Nos.2,4, 6 to 11. The Petitioners to serve the said Respondents again.
4 We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners for some time. We have also heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Sathe in PIL
St.No.1774 of 2020.
5 The learned Counsel have invited our attention to “Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards” issued by Respondent No.3-News Broadcasting Association, which inter alia speaks of `principles of self regulation’, impartiality, objectivity, neutrality and privacy. Our attention is also drawn to the Media Advisory dated 28 August 2020 of the Respondent No.2-Press Council of India which interalia states- “The Council has noted with distress that coverage of the alleged suicide by film actor by many media outlets is in violation of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct, and therefore, advises the Media to adhere to the Norms framed by the Press Council of India. The Media should not narrate the story in a manner so as to induce the general public to believe in the complicity of the person indicted. Publishing information based on gossip about the line of investigation by the official agencies on the crime committed is not desirable. It is not advisable to vigorously report crime related issues on a day to day basis and comment on the evidence without ascertaining the factual matrix. Such reporting brings undue pressure in the course of fair investigation and trial. The Media is advised to refrain from giving excessive publicity to the victim, witnesses, suspects and accused as it will amount to invasion of their privacy rights, identification of witnesses by the Media needs to be avoided as it endangers them to come under pressure from the accused or his associates as well as Investigating agencies. The Media is advised not to conduct its own parallel trial or foretell the decision to avoid pressure during investigation and trial.” Broadcasting Association, which inter alia speaks of `principles of self regulation’, impartiality, objectivity, neutrality and privacy. Our attention is also drawn to the Media Advisory dated 28 August 2020 of the Respondent No.2-Press Council of India which interalia states- “The Council has noted with distress that coverage of the alleged suicide by film actor by many media outlets is in violation of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct, and therefore, advises the Media to adhere to the Norms framed by the PressCouncil of India. The Media should not narrate the story in a manner so as to induce the general public to believe in the complexity of the person indicted. Publishing information based on gossip about the line of investigation by the official agencies on the crime committed is not desirable. It is not advisable to vigorously report crime related issues on a day to day basis and comment on the evidence without ascertaining the factual matrix. Such reporting brings undue pressure in the course of fair investigation and trial. The Media is advised to refrain from giving excessive publicity to the victim, witnesses, suspects and accused as it will amount to invasion of their privacy rights, identification of witnesses by the Media needs to be avoided as it endangers them to come under pressure from the accused or his associates as well as Investigating agencies.The Media is advised not to conduct its own parallel trial or foretell the decision to avoid pressure during investigation and trial.”
6 At this stage and since the Respondent No.5 to 11 are not present, before we consider grant of any prayers sought in the Petitions, we only urge and expect the said Respondents to exercise restraint in the media reporting pertaining to the investigation of unnatural death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput which would in any manner hamper or prejudice the ongoing investigation which is being carried out by Respondent No.4-CBIafter the imprimatur of the Supreme Court vide judgment and order dated 19-08-2020.
7 We would like the stand of the Respondent No.4-CBI as also other Respondents to come on record. Respondent No.4-CBI as also other Respondents to file Affidavit in Reply before the next date.
8 The learned ASG who appears for Respondent No.1-UoI through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting also seeks time on the ground that he has not received a copy of the Petition.
9 Stand over to 10th September 2020.
10 This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned to act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this Order.
[SURENDRA P.TAVADE, J.] [A. A. SAYED, J.]
4/4
അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളൊന്നുമില്ല:
ഒരു അഭിപ്രായം പോസ്റ്റ് ചെയ്യൂ